Let us understand a fundamental notion of Parliamentary procedure.
That notion is the motion to rescind.
A motion to rescind takes a prior vote on a motion and makes it as though the vote had never occurred. The motion to rescind can take place at any time and applies to all but a few, limited cases.
Let us apply that notion to the current proposal to restructure the Middle/High School.
On June 30th the town will be holding an election that could potentially alter the balance of power on the School Committee.
Both the Chair and Vice-Chair of the committee are not seeking reelection.
In reviewing the proposed Restructuring Plan it is clear that it is a last minute creation. The opening transmittal letter is dated May 10th, only two weeks ago.
In preparing to vote on two new members of the School Committee it is incumbent upon the citizens of Southbridge to get the candidates to clearly and unequivocally state their position on this restructuring plan. Even if they favor the idea of two principals at the Middle/High School, it does not mean that they favor this plan, the haste with which it has been compiled or the uncertain budgetary impacts that it would entail.
In voting for new members of the School Committee the citizens of this town should only give their support to those who will support a vote to rescind the plan even if it is approved by the current committee, as all the tea leaves indicate that it will be.
Such an action would remove all demands for the termination of any serving personnel because the authority granted to implement such terminations would cease to exist. Indeed, a motion to rescind would make it as though the authority to undertake such action would never have existed.
In so doing the committee would be in a position to undertake the issue in a deliberate manner in concert with its search for a permanent Superintendent for the schools.